What Sergey spoke about.

Madam President, dear colleagues, as Co-President of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, I want to address the recent decision of the Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan. And let me be clear from the very outset: I deeply regret this decision. I believe it is a mistake – not only in relation to the European Parliament, but also in relation to Azerbaijan's own strategic interests. Parliamentary dialogue is not a luxury. Parliamentary dialogue is not a ceremonial exercise. It is not an add-on. It is one of the few formats where difficult issues can be discussed openly – between people, between members of parliament. And yes, this European Parliament has adopted resolutions that were critical of Azerbaijan. These resolutions addressed human rights, international law, the post-conflict situation in Karabakh and after Karabakh. I really understand you, dear Azerbaijani colleagues, that such criticism can be uncomfortable. But I absolutely believe that discomfort is not a reason to leave the table and the conversation. The European Parliament is a democracy. It is a pluralistic institution. Its positions are adopted by a majority of this Parliament and no single delegation or delegation chair, no single political party or group, can determine what democracies decide. Trust me, I'm often on the receiving end of this uncomfortable position, that I don't like, made by this very Parliament. And just to remind you, the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly is not only about this European Parliament, it is about the parliaments of other Eastern Partnership countries: Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia. That's why by leaving Euronest, Azerbaijan is missing an opportunity. An opportunity to become part of a regional conversation. The conversations that are really, really relevant: Black Sea strategy, regional connectivity, Global Gateway, energy interconnections, digital infrastructures. All this we do discuss – and we discuss just recently in Chișinău, in Euronest. Azerbaijan has an important role to play in these topics, and this Parliament has an important role to play in these topics: laws, budgets, ratifications and political decisions – they do not appear from the air; they pass through this Parliament. This Parliament does play a role in deciding about future budgets or association agreements. So my message is firm but constructive: we will not abandon our values. We will continue to speak about human rights, about international law, peace, accountability and the rights of all communities affected by conflict and after the conflict. But we also say clearly: the doors remain open. The Euronest Parliamentary Assembly was created not for easy conversations, but for necessary ones. And you, dear friends, still remain our members for one more year. There is a notice period of one year before you can leave Euronest. So if Azerbaijan disagrees with the European Parliament, the answer should be engagement. If there are concerns about bias, the answer should be debate. If there are competing narratives about the past and the future of the region, the answer should be dialogue between parliamentarians, not withdrawal from this dialogue. The South Caucasus region does not need more empty chairs; it needs shared responsibility and open discussions. I therefore hope that the Milli Majlis will reconsider this decision. Azerbaijan belongs in the regional conversation. Euronest remains ready to engage seriously, respectfully and honestly, because the future of our shared neighbourhood will not be built by walking away from the tables; it will be built by staying at the table and continuing our conversation.

Mr President, colleagues, while we debate an AI strategy for EU trade, a trilogue is underway on the EU-US trade deal. And while this report calls for our sovereignty to be upheld, the deal risks coercing us. The Trump administration already threatened to raise new tariffs should the Commission push ahead with the tech sovereignty package, and the Commission withdrew – for the third time. This we cannot accept. And this we will not accept. We need the three conditions: a sunrise clause, a sunset clause, and also an anti-coercion instrument should the US threaten tariffs or interfere like it did this morning. Why does this happen? Because we do not agree on rules of EU engagement globally. First, we need a vision – vision is not fair. Vision is not submission and not subordination. A sovereignty package cannot be withdrawn just because the US threatens it. Alliances – we need alliances with geopolitical grown ups, sustainable and democratic. What we have in this House, a global democratic tech alliance. And we need trust – the trust that has been damaged with this White House and big tech, that should be restored.

I'm sure you would be happy if I said yes, but I think we have other capabilities – the capabilities in renewable that are underused and underutilised now. Especially now, during the Iran crisis, I wonder why so many are not addressing the obvious: that we missed an opportunity to invest more into renewables: sun and wind, but also thermal and water. Then we would not be as vulnerable as we are now. That is the solution also for the energy problems that you are addressing.

Madam President, both the Commission and the Council are missing the point. And the point is: a new arms race has begun – not with tanks, not with missiles, with algorithms. If real, Mythos is an algorithm of mass destruction, and it is unfolding now. The line between civilian innovation and instrument of war is disappearing before our eyes. The same AI system that helps you to have algorithms to book your travels in the morning can attack hospitals, power grids and military systems in the evening. EU must initiate a global AI governance regime to address the topic. Let's be frank: in cybersecurity, defence alone is not enough. Deterrence matters. The capability to strike back matters. The capability to make adversaries fear consequences matters. Frankly, the fact that you, Madam Vice-President, are not the Commissioner for defence and that the Commissioner for defence is not you is one of the greatest tragedies of our institutions, because Europe still thinks in silos while the threats against us are converging. We need a European Defence Union also for digital, a strategic command centre for Europe, also for digital, a European Security Council ready to act. We need European AI defence troops and a European AI defence shield – built in Europe, powered by European technologies like Mistral, controlled by democracies. Because a continent that cannot defend itself and its borders – its digital borders – will not control its fate. The time to act is now.

Madam President, 18 % of all children. 1 in 6 children are victims of cyberbullying. And this is not normal. It cannot, it may not become the new generational normalcy. We cannot accept this. How do we fix it? Well, not with quick fixes, but with structural solutions. What's the difference? Age verification or social media bans are quick fixes. They are not going into the real solution. And the real solution is the business model. How do we tackle that? By DSA. DSA implementation is what we need. We need to switch off recommender systems by default. We need to crack down on dark patterns. We need to mandate platforms to share their data with researchers. And what we need is a ban on nudifiers. Something that this House has proposed and something that the EPP, together with some representatives of the Commission and with German Government, hijacked yesterday during the negotiations for AI Act omnibus. And this is the unacceptable truth. And this truth has to be changed. We need a ban on nudifiers to combat CSAM.

Madam President, every time I meet Nikol Pashinyan, the courageous Prime Minister of Armenia, he emphasises an essential point: the pro-European reforms are not for someone else, they are for Armenians. And indeed it is important to remind the voters also in these June elections that democracy is not for someone else, these elections are not for someone else, and the peace deal is not for someone else. It is for Armenians themselves. And this is precisely why all the democratic reforms deserve to be guarded against manipulation. Because interference is for someone else – for Moscow, for Peking, for corruption, a corrupt oligarch or clergy with ties to the FSB. And this is why we, the European Union, will support Armenian democracy. We will activate the mechanism against interference. We have brought experience of other affected countries like Moldova, and we have expedited a lot of cooperation, including the process of visa liberalisation – not because it is for the EU, because it is for Armenians themselves.

Madam President, Russia is not just destroying Ukrainian cities – Russia is testing whether justice is alive. While the right wing is going to Moscow to negotiate, as we just heard, every abducted Ukrainian child, every deported Ukrainian prisoner, every tortured Ukrainian civilian is asking us, the EU, one simple question: do crimes still have consequences? Our answer must be very clear: yes they do. As a lawyer, I know, justice is not just a slogan, it is a system. The system must be built, defended, funded, enforced, and that's why I pushed for a permanent tribunal against the crime of aggression here in this House. That's why we must be building a machinery of justice: the tribunal, the International Claims Commission, full support for the ICC and a global coalition that goes beyond Europe. But justice is not credible if we still pay Russia to kill – billions for gas, oil and nuclear fuel. So no impunity also means no dirty deals with Moscow.

Madam President, four years sounds like an abstract number here in Brussels, but in Ukraine it's counted by mornings and shelters, nights in the cold and empty chairs – chairs at kitchen tables that will forever remain vacant. I looked into the eyes of what Russia calls collateral: a geography teacher who teaches her students the world from a basement, who draws Europe on a wall by candlelight, while her own child is learning the sound of drones as the new alphabet. I talked to a medic. He said it's not his dream to survive; his dream is to be remembered. We talked to Putin. We traded with him. We called him stability. Those were our mistakes. We own them; we repair them. But Ukrainians pay for those mistakes. The Budapest Memorandum was a huge mistake. And now Budapest stays stands for more: for betrayal, for cowardice, for something for which Europe does not want to stand. We will help Ukraine and Ukraine will help us. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, to the people of Minneapolis, to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to every American who believes that power must answer to law: Europe weeps with you, Europe sees you and Europe stands with you. I would like to apologise to you for the fascists here from among ourselves who don't understand that nothing – no policy – is worth the life of a human being. That is what it is about now. Our European Union was built on one radical idea: the state is never above the law. And quite honestly, American friends, we learned it from you and we learned that a principle like this has no passports, no borders, no nationality. So to American citizens: your democracy is the biggest gift you gave to humanity. Cherish it! To senators and congresspeople, our colleagues: this is your moment. Use it. Don't choose loyalty over constitution!

Mr President, Putin loves to tell stories about Hitler's crimes, about the Leningrad blockade, when Nazis starved and froze to death a whole city. I will tell the story about Baba Zhenya. She was a Holocaust survivor. She survived Hitler. Putin froze her to death in her own apartment in Kyiv this winter. The old woman escaped the Holocaust, but she couldn't escape a genocide ⁠–⁠ Putin's genocide. Meanwhile, Orbán is calling Ukraine an enemy to Hungary. Shame on you! Right‑wing populists in this House are calling to make peace with the Kremlin. Shame on you! Trump's White House is blackmailing Ukraine into an unfair peace. Shame on you! But we will not remember those. We will remember Baba Zhenya, and we will remember Ukraine as it is and as it will continue, as it resists aggression and remains dignified even in age, even in tragedy, even in ice. We must provide a defence system: Patriots, IRIS, Taurus, Taurus, Taurus! Give Ukraine what they need. Give them tools, not words! And protecting heat, light and life is not a solidarity – you are right, Madam Commissioner. It is our strategy. It is a lifeline for Ukraine. Our lifeline.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank David McAllister and all my colleagues very much for their joint work on this report. Thank you very much! He brings a simple but uncomfortable truth to the point. Reality has changed fundamentally, and not to the benefit of Europe. Russia is waging a brutal war in Ukraine. International law is being systematically eroded, not only by autocrats, but this time also by the United States. We are experiencing a crisis of transatlantic relations: Blackmail against Europe, threats against Greenland and a US that defines its security strategy through spheres of influence. This is not anti-Americanism, this is realism. If even our closest partner defines security through blackmail and deals, then Europe must respond with strategic maturity. And there are such signs. When we talk about the Black Sea Strategy, the further development of the Eastern Partnership and the connectivity of the Global Gateway, these are signs that Europe is now finding its way back to itself in foreign policy conditions. But: It has to be more. We need to talk about deterrence and about a real power underpinning diplomacy, about defence policy.

Madam President, colleagues, this moment in Venezuela is not just about one abduction, it's not about one regime, and it's not about one country. It is a test for the rules that protect all of us. Yes, the capture of Maduro may feel right today. And, honestly, my heart rejoiced with many Venezuelans when I heard the news. But feelings do not build order. Rules do. If international law becomes optional for the strongest, it vanishes for the weakest. And that's a problem. Yes, some prisoners were released ‑ too few, too selectively ‑ but repression remains. The system remains, and squeezing oil out of a despotic regime is no better than ruling by despotism. The truth is this: this was never about democracy. It was about power. And that is why Europe must lead. We must be the other, the better continent. Not by force, not by silence, but by law, by unity, and by standing with Venezuela's democratic forces in their diversity and their feeling and longing for freedom.

First of all, thank you very much. I am really pleased to hear that this group has finally recognised that the threat is coming from Russia – thank you very much. Number two, we have plenty of instruments for cooperation. We have an agreement between Denmark and the United States, as I already mentioned, and we have the Arctic mission of NATO that was already exercised this week. Yes, there were not so many soldiers and troops on the ground, but, come on, there are only 150 American troops on the ground. In fact, this number was reduced by the Americans. The Americans have neglected this issue for many years, well, now they woke up, and so did we. So let's join forces and do it together. Instead of playing the card of blackmailing and of market deals that Trump wants to do with us. So cooperation and not military threat.

Mr President, dear American friends – my plea is to you. I came to the United States at 14 straight from the Soviet Union, and I became a believer in American openness, democracy and leadership. Now I speak to you as a European, as a friend: wake up, speak up. Your leadership is undoing what America has built in the last century. It replaces a hemisphere of freedom with a hemisphere of blackmail. Greenland is not the issue. The United States can already use military access as it wants. The agreement with Denmark dates back to 1951. The story is not about new security threats. Denmark is your ally, the EU is your ally, Greenland is your ally and not for sale. Blackmail among allies is not security, it is a betrayal. The consequences for all of us are also clear. Europe needs a new foreign policy doctrine. Europe, colleague Madison, needs a Security Council. We need one united voice, fast decisions and a lot of military capacity. That's the conclusion that we draw for ourselves.

Madam President, yes, colleague Hahn, AI is just a tool, but hell, it's a powerful one. What is happening now, what we're experiencing, is precisely what we have been warning about. What we are experiencing is precisely why we fought for a powerful AI Act, for the DSA, for the DMA. We have the instruments; we need leadership, we need vision and we need enforcement. And it is not about reviewing and revising, it's about action. Last week, Vice-President, I asked you, what do we do with such generative AIs? It's not about marking fakes or marking deep fakes. It's about how to treat generative AI under the AI Act in such cases, whether we designate them a core platform service under the DMA, what the status of generative AI is under the DSA – these are questions, these are uncomfortable questions, but hell, uncomfortable questions are being put by those who are sanctioned, and they are courageous enough. So let's be as courageous as they are to ask those questions and to answer them.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the 28th legal regime is not a technical exercise, we all know it. It is a political choice about Europe's economic future. And without fixing our internal market, without fixing the fragmentation that we have, there is no scale up of Europe, no digital sovereignty and no global competitiveness. Anyone who says that regulation and competitiveness contradict each other, look at this proposal. This is exactly the other way around. Through this regulation, we improve our competitiveness and we give chances to scale ups and to start ups. Let me be clear also about the inclusion of the of Article 50 on the freedom of establishment, which requires the co-legislators to act by means of directives. This is the choice of the rapporteur, and only this way we achieve the rapporteur's purposes. And everyone who knows me knows I would go for a European harmonisation full scale. But in order to strike the balance that was proposed by the rapporteurs and in order to save time, I would propose that we go a path that would allow us to conclude as fast as possible, and therefore I support the proposal of the rapporteur in this case.

This was not about Ukraine at all, but you said quite clearly that the smaller Member States are suffering from the big ones because of our defence policy, and I say that is not true at all. The little ones want protection. They have not received this protection for years, they have been neglected, and now comes the necessary and correct correction. And you're telling me something about Ukraine. That's not what you said. So please correct yourself if you are already the lawyer of the smaller states here!

Not only do you have a different perspective on reality, but sometimes I feel like you have no sense of reality at all. They act here as an advocate for smaller states that are currently suffering from the supremacy of the large states. What about the Baltic States? What about Poland, which is not a very big state? They need help, they need support. And to say now that this is a project of the great is really the diffraction of truth. We need to look at what happened to Nord Stream 2 when we made deals here with Russia at the expense of the smaller states. Now it's the other way around.

Madam President, dear colleagues, something extraordinary is happening. The new US national security strategy states it plainly: certainty is over, alliances are no more given. I am a transatlanticist, but transatlanticism doesn't mean blindness. When rhetoric across the Atlantic turns against the European Union, we must act, invest in our own capacities, and build our new decision-making bodies. The times when Orbán or Mr Deutsch determines how fast we decide is over. The times when Mr Fico decides how much we act is over. The times when Putin determines how fast we act is over. We need new solutions, making decision-making easier. Not sometime, but now. I propose introducing a European Security Council that would decide fast about our existential questions. And now, very briefly, to Ukraine: there is only one security guarantee for Ukraine which is effective, and it's not the blurry Article 5, it's Article 42 of our Treaty. That's why EU membership now!

Mr President, dear colleagues, this report comes at a crucial moment. Algorithmic management and automated decisions are no longer the future of work. They are our present and we have to react. Digitalisation moves fast and laws must keep up. Rights must not follow digitalisation, digitalisation must follow rights. Europe has already acted. The AI Act, the GDPR, the Platform Workers Directive. But we need to do more. There are strong foundations. The Commission is now considering new rules on algorithmic management through the upcoming Quality Jobs Act, and the report that we're discussing here now is meant to guide this process, improving workers condition and protecting workers digital rights. As JURI rapporteur, I want to stress one key point. We need legal clarity. Any new rules must be coherent, targeted and legally sound. Our goal is simple, but the path there is complicated. The digital world of work must be fair and predictable. And this is another contribution to that.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I am hugely relieved that both co‑legislators followed our advice and agreed to omit Article 114 as legal basis, not only because it leaves more space for EDIP, but also because it allows us to focus on the essentials. And the essential is: Europe has reached the end of comforting zone and comforting illusions. Russia is escalating. We are seeing provocations like today probably in Berlin, in the Bundestag, where the internet was shut down. Defence today is no more only about tanks and missiles, it is about codes, it is about data, satellites. Security is no longer declared – it is engineered. This is what this defence omnibus is about and what it delivers. We, the Parliament – I am also a shadow – we, the Parliament, shaped this file to change how Europe acts. Not rhetorically, but structurally. The agreement opens Horizon Europe to dual use and critical defence without losing sight of peaceful innovation. It strengthens the European Defence Fund by simplifying procedures. It aligns Digital Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility. And it makes another historic turn: it integrates Ukraine as part of the European Defence Fund. This is something that the Greens proposed and I am very proud of my group, that we did it. With accessing the EUR 9.5 billion in defence, Ukraine truly becomes part of our defence and industrial sector. This is not militarisation. It is responsibility to defend our values with real capabilities together, also together with Ukraine. Thank you very much and good luck with this law.

Madam President, antisemitism may never win, antisemitism may never be justified and the fight against antisemitism should never be instrumentalised for political reasons. (Exclamation in a non‑EU language) Blessed is the judge blessing those who perished. Blessed is the true judge condemning those who killed. Blessed is the true judge remembering those whose only mistake was to come to celebrate life and light, whose only mistake was to be Jewish. Jewish lives must be protected, like all human lives – everywhere, without preconditions and without instrumentalisation. There is no justification for terror and death. We propose a parliamentary statement in condemnation of the terrorist attack against the Hanukkah celebrations in Sydney, and solidarity with the victims and their families. (The speaker concluded in a non‑EU language)

Mr President, colleagues, those who want peace do not impose it on an occupied country. Those who want peace do not blame victims for the assault. Those who want a lasting peace do not normalise criminals. And those who want peace do not coach the aggressor via phone on how best to cheat on European and American people. Today, Europe faces a truly defining moment. And yes, I – and we – welcome the proactive stance of leaders like Merz, Macron, Meloni, Stubb and others. But where is President Costa? Where is the one who represents all of them together? Where is the European Union united? We must unite for peace: this means sanctions cannot be lifted while a single Russian boot stands on Ukrainian soil. We must unite for peace: this means accountability cannot be negotiated away. International law is not a bargaining chip. We must unite for peace: Europe must act now, decisively. Enlargement is the biggest currency we have. We must send a clear message, and the clearest we have is an accelerated path for Ukraine, including Article 42, which would protect Ukraine as a member of the European Union. We must do it for Ukraine. We must do it for ourselves.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, dear colleagues, thank you. I want to speak in a spirit of cooperation. Last Wednesday many of us waited for the digital package with mixed expectations. So did I: I have worked on some of the laws we're talking about and I know how much effort this House invested in them. That is why I am concerned. I am concerned that the package reopens recently adopted legislation without impact assessment, without evidence and without the clarity the companies need. Make no mistake: our group supports European businesses and European innovation. We believe in targeted adjustments that reduce burden, provide certainty and strengthen enforcement. This is why we proposed a digital enforcement agency, a one-stop shop and standard reporting tools. But some elements of your proposal raise questions. On GDPR, the new approach to redefining personal data leaves too much discretion to data holders. That creates uncertainty, not clarity. On the AI act, the 'stop-the-clock' mechanism for high-risk systems is understandable, but ending it at any moment makes planning impossible. That makes uncertainty, not clarity. At the same time, public debate suggests that Europe is following a deregulation agenda made elsewhere. This creates uncertainty and not clarity. So I say to all the groups, including the EPP: let's work together to support our companies without re-opening settled compromises. Let's protect our innovation and our democratic choice, both with democratic majorities. Don't make the mistakes you made with Omnibus 1.